The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-11-16
SPARKS WILL FLY.
He Formally Resigns His Office,
His Letter Delivered to the Presi-
dent Personally.
Defending His Course in the Omaha
Land Grant Case.
He Claims to Have Carried Out
the Law to the Letter.
The Commissioner Accuses the Secre-
tary OF Dverting the Issue from
One of Legal Construction to
One of INSTRUMENTATION.

WASHINGTON, Nov. l5.-Iand Com.
missioner Sparks this afternoon personally
delivered to the President the following
letter, defending his course the Chicago
st. Paul, Minneapolis K Omaha land
grant case, and formally resigning his
Office:
DEPARnrNTDF THE INTERIOR,
GENiRAL LAND OrrICE,
WASHINGTON, Nov, u, 1881
To the President
The honorable Secretary OF the Interior advises
me 10y letter dated The ilh'inst IN effect that he
should on that date present to YOU the alternative
of selecting new SECRETARY OF the Interior or II
new commissioner Of the general land Office, In
view Of which have felt called upon 10 address
You this letter.
Under the authority vested in the commissioner
by the laws, and In accordance with regulations
and practice pursuant IN law by which action h
fir taken In the gcncml land Office In all matters
relating To- public lands | had, previous Ia Sep
lcmbcr, ls>d made adjustments of certain railroad
land grhuts, two VI which, known ns the omaha
eases, had been specially directed By the sccrc-
tafN IN report.
On October T. 1857, two decisions Of the Secretary
were rendered In the Omaha eases. non concuring
In my adjustments and uyvrruliug the authority On
which they WcrD based. lie directed me ut the
simv time O cause the grant to h. adjusted In con
fufmity with said decisions I now infer from his
proved 10y the Official law wiser for the depart
mcnt ol the Interior The pniut at issue rlntcd to
the claim OF railroad companies 10 indemnity ior
lands that, under uiilrund gmnting acts. were Ia.
served from the operation OF those acts by express
terms ni the statutes.
Previous o. tS5i lands that had been reserved by
the government for Indian and other purpose aud
which excluded irum the grants aud from the op.
criilOu oi the granting ncts, had been patented or
certified to the companies. both Us granted lands
aud a. indcmnlucs. promi.cuously with other
lands This seems ~ have been done Ia puru-
nncr ol pmcticc, giving milrnad companies what.
ever they asked irr, apparently without much con.
sidcmion of the restrictions and limitations u the
rrauts ln that year the title tu large quantity ~
such lgnds Ia the state ui Kansas, which had been
Lawrence & Galveston railroad company,
was drcrccd invalid by the United states
supreme court. sinrc that date, or for the PAST
twelve months lauds that were rc.crycl nt date oi
grant or at date OF the definite lolntiun oi the
roads. NJ the ease may hc, have irvn Icnuici aud
treated in the decision. aud practice ul this office
aud department a. excluded not only from all the
grants, but frum the indemnity Eases under al
/ gmnts wherein such pascWcd lands ar by tho
terms Of law excluded from the operation ui the
acts
I The Secretary held IN the Omaha cases that 10,
company was entitled to indemnify for such land
This dcc Ion, indhcnyl 30, viii have the effect "a
/ take irnm the people many million arms oi land
| within milroal Indemnity limit, which, ~ youl
advice and with yUuf approval a. expressed iu ia,
/ Guiliorl Miller c.y. have hren proclaimed 10 "a,
/ country NJ petord io the public domain.
The question ui the correctness ~ these decisions
became, thcrvinr'. matter of momcnious concern
| n they ,orprfly DECLARED the law, thee lnnds be-
] long tn the nilrund companies. II ihey lid not
! cnrroily dccan the law the lands belong Ia the
people The omaha decisions purpurt tu be- found
I cd upon the ler..on oi The supreme rguH, 100 the
I ohsc NJ the Wluona ~ Peter rlruhd company
" barney li5 T. A., GlNI the assertion ciur made
that "thc plain language % the count IN That ris
seem, io tc ronclu.NCoi the questions pg'r1icd.
aud also upon d rrtlaln rule III statutory nIcrpry
intiuu n'litd upon o.. hius the axiom 90 rpuslruc
I ton. said decisions W'c iurih"r endowed lH nj.
| crcucc 90 un unwpoiigi d'risinn ~ ihc lnltgl
state. circuit cuuu ioi Wisconsin,. which was aid.
in the omaha ctsc.. ;u hc Judicial construction
which scums % leave no further iupm for de.
/ ,usslun."
10 appeared To me that the decision ~ the va.
prrmv count iu The Barney ease Wns 90 pluicly
/ silent upon The question decided iu the Omaha
,l~s end not even rohll'f "l ,'"lt sl.lnllrl
/ tIcH dc"isipns. u nl,o u'Fslri o. me- that The
question az Issue WI. not % ilr Hisr decided 10y hv
circuit court lHT Wisconsin. Huu ID seemed that thU
! rule "i ''niutnay interpretation "i"pigl in The
/ owlba rasc, we thr opposite of che rule ui con
] HinIftIuu adopted Ly thU courts uul lni down hy
/ law Utligr-. Wis thcn,urC profoundly rrl, lurUd
that the SECRETARY had bprn committed 90 Ufrir ul
I law which " Wrought fully ip bis p,nuual aii"u
/ ton might d. convicted.
] Ill the pfa,iicc oi the department ~ permit
urprsontftiy,. oi nilnpld. aud uthrf private inter
! c.is 30 npry ur v,i'Ns and UCuusldgfiiiuus oI
dee ions Whtu que iluus ar decided nfplusi such
interest. believed that. as tlH ufif II ih' GOV
cfgmcui h.Nin. immcdIaic sngriinn.i.ip If ihI
] public lnnds and immediate charge ul the lssu
l anre oi patents under ull grants ui land bi Ton
rn..s . hal ul least equal ghtWith s'uiatitD
] uf prlutc Interests tu nsA uIr -vHrity uf thT To-
/ terror f0 o. rVHmino departmental uyrlsiOn. And
/ believed DC especially prHUrr tnrNpus my NluW
tI Ihu SECRETARY uu thusr cases hriuU.n hIl not bU
would nave donc so Zoo The Original instance, u
/ hal anticipated change IT rtliuf AID decision
/ uIuu lhD I'nln' ln question Accordingly NHii't
I uipn the -Crr'ilfg md personally gyrr.,sol &
him my de- rr ~ have rH1lDa ~ enc DECISIONS DO
tlI,tr eases llr uggrsiri ~ me ~ lHi The mattel
| rst fuf thc puugui, IN which suggestion J. o
I puursr rhCDnu'li urIuIriccd
The formal Application iur nciIow. couched 20
I most respectful trfms va completed nhuut Ortn
bcr Al, but vus not PVT upon ilc Official rccOnl
] uuH was not made public. ON NoNrmhyl iu. ~
I rri,.d uutr ifim'thn secretary d,.iring mr T.
My lcitrT Wls accordingly signed and drliSCrd &
him on the liih inst Whh npcU ny changes e.
data and other corrections that had been made
tupy II this letter T. hrfyWith iH"lu'r iur your iu
I spffiiun aud iuf your Judgment both upon sub
sihncc oi matter aud upon Official courtesy oi form
Several important questions wcna decided In M
Omaha cns,'s other Than thr our rcl0trd t1 herein
which Justly call iuf consideration upon the pIin
Uf agreement With uf cunnifcuiiuns ~ DIVERSIONS %
the supreme cnuit ui The United States, but CON
fined my application lur review tn The question %
"lndrmniff Tor land excluded from tbo Operation
Of the gmniing acts that Icing of O,crahad0wini
IN prrontlng this application Informed IN
errrJiiry that " Womb not De- made public unles
hy himself. Public attention having now bcgl
rillod tn tlo matter ~ u feel nt liberty ~ ufnifl
tho prss with olpA II this letter after % has ca
e,,9immunicaicd 10 ~ aud copy imnanlIied 3
ID b but just 10 say that the Published coumuul
! cation fddf,,# s0d ~ me nud lnli briuU Jon isW
! answer to w letter uppiiur i1f WNlCW Tho bon
| rtiard by me a. strictly one ~ law. The pr'sruta
lion Of ihe l.suc WIS strictly iu the line 81 leu
argument ln The letter addressed ~ me that btu
III not met aud the cieri has been 10 Cfcaic the err
! urous impression that iho issue Wa ono 81 nuthol
liy alone and net ! he'd refused TO execute IN
| FtrrrnD's of'ira' 0ndrr.
Ths Nyor.on Of tho laue irou ono 81 LEGAL con
sifurlion tn one ~ authority and Decentralization
! 81 The substitution " forgo for Argument n diyci
sion ~ fic public mud rom the merits ri the uisi
/ and " not rcllsicd by me in this presentation
| yuu would ll the suppression by that power ~
proper aud C1nsiioniie cayri on my part, o. 10
ismni .ioucr 81 the grnoml land uhicr. ~ fccun
lu thr public lu'rfUst nn Impartial hearing hciur
he slirctafy 0i the Interior ~ purely loyal cue
ION affecting tho sdmluiiiati0n Of tie 0Alcc wit
which ava charged.
1io 11l0c 0i commissioner Of iho roncml lam
0nier h1s lDCn QUO OF Intense labor impusingn cot
slant sens1 uf hWh responsibility Having spIgil
: N q yuur hands I luNr cUuUnurl iu hold it ui.
out 20 HguH1 Ol duty WITH view Oi ri' HliuE sYm
gauI i1 doe public. have Cnicarnfrl ip ri "hnlr
ms fll dut} in " iu thc face NJ many dtnIuiug'
m,nis nud much CtlumnN and abuse FROM ihp.
vLuu Interests woe 10 drlrgi the r1l
ria pursued. I have believed ms liup
F, / r'.i,n t0 81 coucr and thought Bal o. go
I ilf tho bciiri that % met fuuf afufuiM. u toe
decisions 0fcshid0W q c'Hus' in Official isliic, %
/ fhlt subject. knowing Veil What MS VII mrnh
prtrticHl applications 7 r0iild not ~ cOnnc. VII
, ~ s,usc u day. b. tlc lnsirimcnt 10 chut W
] Having ever NJ now trrrtdtd TIC commission
k.ld lnOI,a gou sublret Ia is'if isii ani bu8ihs